Case law

In re Miamisburg Train Derailment Litigation

1994 Ohio 490 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 8, 1994

In addition to certifying the case as a class action, the trial court certified the issues of negligence, qualified nuisance, and punitive damages for trial. … The record clearly demonstrates that the Secretary's tank car specifications pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials "related to" a concern over the potential release of hazardous materials.

Brown v. State

18 Ohio St. (N.S.) 497 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1869

But the context shows clearly that the court meant “so far as his life is shown by the evidence;’’ which, in fact, does •seem to cover a very large portion of his life. … The answer to most of these exceptions is found in the fact that the evidence was offered only for a qualified purpose, and that the jury were instructed only to consider it in that light.

Sorrell v. Thevenir

69 Ohio St. 3d 415 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jun 1, 1994

Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted … in response to a crisis that has not clearly been established to have existed.

Thompson Electric, Inc. v. Bank One

37 Ohio St. 3d 259 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 6, 1988

The first three subsections of R.C. 1311.011(B) establish certain duties and limitations on subtrades who work at residential construction sites. … Such a request by a mortgagee is clearly discretionary. As we stated in Gardner Plumbing, Inc. v.

State ex rel. Rose v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections

90 Ohio St. 3d 229 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2000

Would the majority have separate petitions that are filed and then withdrawn evaluated for purposes of determining qualified electors whenever they are first filed—despite R.C. 3501.38(K)’s clear mandate that “[a]ll separate … I would therefore deny the writ and leave well-established precedent undisturbed.

Anderson v. Poindexter

6 Ohio St. (N.S.) 622 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1856

That slavery is contrary to the policy of Ohio, as established by the constitution of the state, is certainly true. … The effect of these adjudications, therefore, is most clearly and distinctly against the position taken by the majority of the court in the case before us, which is nothing more nor less than this, that the undeniable legal

Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion)

2021 Ohio 4463 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2021

XVIII, Sections 4 and 6 represent a positive grant of power to municipalities, creating a constitutional default rule that if a municipality owns and operates a utility within the bounds of the power granted to it, it is immune … The dispute before this court was clearly focused on specific power-purchase agreements that the municipal utilities acknowledged were entered into for the purpose of resale to the industrial customer.

State v. Spaulding (Slip Opinion)

2016 Ohio 8126 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 2016

To establish a Sixth Amendment violation, a defendant ordinarily must establish both that counsel performed deficiently and that he or she was prejudiced by the deficient performance. Strickland v. … Thus, ordinarily we defer to a trial court’s evidentiary ruling unless the court “has clearly abused its discretion and the defendant has been materially prejudiced thereby.” State v.

Butler County Bar Ass'n v. Minamyer

129 Ohio St. 3d 433 · Ohio Supreme Court · Jul 28, 2011

. {¶ 5} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct because the record clearly and convincingly demonstrates that respondent (1) failed to notify his client that he did not carry malpractice insurance, (2) … PTSD and other ‘mental illnesses’ are characterized by measurable changes in the brain and in the hormonal and immune systems.” Invisible Wounds at 8.

Robbins v. State

8 Ohio St. (N.S.) 131 · Ohio Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1857

The court further charged the jury as follows, to wit: “ In most cases of murder in the first degree, it is necessary to establish, by proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, the *168 fact of killing, the intent to kill, and the … While this would be clearly reconcilable to the Pennsylvania *182 statute, there can be no murder in the second degree, under our statute, without an intention or purpose to kill.

Ayers v. Ayers

2024 Ohio 1833 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 2024

These findings are more or less relevant3 to establish a potential income that may be imputed to David under R.C. 3119.01(C)(17)(a), but they do not by themselves establish that David’s lack of income at the time of the final … But Belleville was not qualified to give an expert opinion on the labor market, and she provided no evidence, such as local unemployment data or job postings, to support her statements. {¶ 38} For these reasons, the

State ex rel. Ohio Funds Management Board v. Walker

55 Ohio St. 3d 1 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1990

However, evaluating the totality of this new Act and applying all of the proper standards of constitutional review, we must conclude that clearly the more legally persuasive argument is that of the respondent. … It may very well be that the constitutional debt limit of $750,000 8 established in 1851 is extremely low in today’s inflated dollar.

State v. Braden

98 Ohio St. 3d 354 · Ohio Supreme Court · Apr 2, 2003

Again, the court’s instructions clearly described the aggravating circumstance that the jury was to consider during deliberations. … Burch’s testimony to show that his paranoid schizophrenia qualified as an R.C. 2929.04(B)(3) mitigating factor.

State v. Grant

67 Ohio St. 3d 465 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1993

Also, Grant never preserved this issue at trial by objecting to the exclusion of jurors who were not so qualified. … First, the evidence, while circumstantial, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the specified aggravating circumstances of a “course of conduct involving the purposeful killing of * * * two or more persons,” and also establishes

Beverage Holdings, L.L.C. v. 5701 Lombardo, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)

2019 Ohio 4716 · Ohio Supreme Court · Nov 19, 2019

. {¶ 13} Our legal standards for the interpretation of contracts are well established. … And if the contract had merely provided a credit for rents received by the seller from the tenant, without additional qualifying language, that might be the most logical reading of the contract.

State v. Yarbrough

95 Ohio St. 3d 227 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 2002

Evid.R. 804(B)(3) {¶62} Calvin Davis’s statement that McGhee, Jelks, and Taborn killed Arnett was clearly not against Calvin Davis’s penal interest. … Sanders (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 257, 750 N.E.2d 90, and “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v.

State v. Yarbrough

95 Ohio St. 3d 227 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 2002

Evid.R. 804(B)(3) {¶ 62} Calvin Davis’s statement that McGhee, Jelks, and Taborn killed Arnett was clearly not against Calvin Davis’s penal interest. … Sanders (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 257 , 750 N.E.2d 90 , and “but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise.” State v.

State ex rel. Maxcy v. Saferin (Slip Opinion)

155 Ohio St. 3d 496 · Ohio Supreme Court · Oct 4, 2018

But this court has held on multiple occasions that Article XVIII, Section 9, read in pari materia with Article XVIII, Section 14, provides that “the number of valid part-petition signatures necessary to establish a right … The Ohio Constitution clearly distinguishes the power of initiative from the power of referendum. See Article II, Section 1(g).

Ayers v. Ayers

178 Ohio St. 3d 101 · Ohio Supreme Court · May 15, 2024

The precise wording is therefore inconsequential, but the domestic- relations court’s order must clearly evince a finding that a parent’s unemployment or underemployment is voluntary. {¶ 24} In the present case, none … These findings are more or less relevant3 to establish a potential income that may be imputed to David under R.C. 3119.01(C)(17)(a), but they do not by themselves establish that David’s lack of income at the time of the final

State v. Buell

22 Ohio St. 3d 124 · Ohio Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1986

reasonable doubts as to its accuracy, and such identification is crucial to a closely balanced prosecution, expert testimony on eyewitness identification is admissible under Evidence Rule 702 so long as (1) the expert is qualified … Sims is clearly distinguishable. The factors presented in that case, i.e., improper subject, expert’s lack of familiarity with the facts, and no precedent, are not present herein.